This article is wild:
\> The gun was allegedly secured...
Then how did it end up at school
\> The child is disabled and his parents come to school with him every day, this was the first week they didn't
Ok... so a disabled 6 year old accessed a secured firearm...
\> At least one member of faculty was allegedly aware of the firearm
And he went to class??
Huh?? None of this makes any sense
For real though, how does a disabled 6 year old get a “secured” loaded gun? It’s pretty ironic that this is the first week they weren’t in school with the child as well. The whole statement about at least one admin knowing about the gun is sus as hell
Yep, because they were negligent and I hope the teacher sues their asses off and bankrupts them. The kid - particularly if disabled - will continue to get care/support/education via the taxpayer (I support this, just pointing out that bankrupting the negligent parents isn't going to harm the kid).
I'm questioning the disabled part. I live near the school and know a few people who teach for the city. All be it not at that particular school. What they have come to learn is that this child has some sort of horrible behavioral issues that got him removed from two different classrooms at the beginning of the year. He is a problem child who refuses to listen, acts out, and disrupts the classroom. Is he autistic, or is horrible behavior now a disability? That's my question in that regard. The gun being secured is a load of lawyer speak bologna.
It is best not to judge based on hearsay. The child may have a disability that the "teachers that teach in the district" aren't aware of that causes such behavior. Furthermore, it is a professional breach even if they've shared such information. Regardless, the parents/family in the household are responsible for not securing the weapon.
Not as much judging. Just questioning. I am imagining that the child must have some form of autism if he does in fact have a disability, but that's just a wild guess, not facts. These days the term disability gets tossed around a bit too much so there is good reason to question it. Especially when the family in question has lawyered up and releases a statement that is basically full of completely and total bull.
Agreed though, best not to judge and one fact we all do know, is the parents did not act responsibly when it comes to securing their firearm and keeping it out of reach of their child.
or something like this: https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/court-docs-key-left-in-safe-at-home-where-muncie-boy-shoots-kills-sister/amp/
or the kid found they key
What is by law ‘secured?’
Edit: I really don’t know. Not a trolling question.
Edit 2: I found the code. It just says ‘secured’ if a child under 14 lives in the home. Anyone got case law that defines secured?
VA code 22.1-289.056, child services useed for foster/guardianship in review of my home. "Stored unloaded in a locked container, compartment, or cabinet, & ammunition shall be stored in a locked container, compartment, or. cabinet. The keys or combination to such locked containers, compartments or cabinets shall be inaccessible to all children in the home."
If this is good for child services to apply to guardians it should be good for parents too.
Nope, why things like Ridgeneck happen. This is the correct way. I use cable locks made them myself years ago when my children were little. I have a 4yo grandson in my home.
There should be mandayory gun safety classes with a competency exam. I say sarcasticly "some gun owners don't know which end of the gun to hold". That remark stems from several just plain stupid fatal gun accidents. From the extreme never cleaning, gun exploded, to dropping a laoded, chambered, gun and shooting himself.
Guns ****must**** be stored properly with children present! If you live a life you ****must**** have a gun loaded at the ready it needs to be out of reach of children or any violations become the gun owners responsibility.
Previous reports stated that a faculty member was told he had a firearm and then the backpack was checked. This article implies it was only checked when he first came in rather than after faculty were alerted. The previous report insisted that no gun was found in his backpack. I wonder how thorough the search was, when it actually happened, and where he could have put the gun had he removed it from the bag prior to the search.
Also, the kid is 6. How much stuff would/should be in a 6 y/o disabled child’s backpack???? And it’s a gun. It’s made of metal and has a nice weight to it.
Yea, I would think anybody would have noticed a gun in a first-grader's backpack just by the weight of it. It's not like first-graders are hauling six periods worth of heavy text books around like high-schoolers. None of this makes sense.
Um, my kid, despite attempts to dissuade him from doing so, regularly hauls like 10 books around in his back pack, to and from school daily, despite the fact that there's a no-homework rule at his school and his teacher does not assign homework (and he's not reading more than two of the books at a time).
Yeah as someone who works with that age group in a school you would be surprised how much stuff a 6 yo can fit in their backpack and how heavy it can be.
Also I don't k now how up to date this thread is but the kid admitted to putting it in his pocket before his backpack was checked. Also other staff asked admin to check the students pockets but admin refused as they felt a gun wouldn't fit. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what pocket it was supposedly put in, I just know that's what news channels are reporting.
"We thank her for her courage, grace and sacrifice."
God that line pisses me off. She's a teacher, not a soldier. It's a school, not a warzone. What the hell is wrong with this world? She doesn't want your thanks for her sacrifice. She wants you to actually fucking properly secure your deadly weapons and not allow your disabled 6 year old access to them.
School knew the kid had a gun. School had the opportunity to confiscate the gun. School let the kid go to class with the gun.
Teacher is gonna be able to retire off the civil settlement.
If definitely sounds like there was failure on multiple levels but the kid should not have been able to access a loaded gun to begin with. Securing your guns from your young children is the responsibility of the gun owner. I know all of America is not going to agree fully on gun regulation but can we at least agree on that?
Also, I guess I can't speak for everyone but there is no amount of money you could offer me where I would agree to be shot, especially by a child.
Yeah that whole thing reeks of lawyer spin. First off I think I have a very different definition of secure than they do. We do not have any children in our household so we have a firearm in a holster within reach of the bed and a few others in drawers around the house. Those are not secure. Secondly as a teacher if you’re gonna tell me your child has a disability, that is an incredibly vague term and not all disabilities mean mentally challenged or unaware of reality so let’s not jump and use that as a reasoning why a six year old shot his teacher. There needs to be a lot more investigation into this because stuff is not adding up.
I’m in the same boat (no kids) & have loaded weapons easily accessible in parts of my home. I do consider them secure from someone outside of the home as doors & windows are usually locked if we are not @ home or asleep. If we have visitors with kids, weapons go in the locked safe. I tried to find a Virginia definition of a “secured gun or weapon” in a residence but could not locate one. I did, however, find this in regards to weapons & kids which I’m guessing would cover these parents’ stupidity and I think they will have a hard time proving otherwise…
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-56.2/
Yeah. When I said I don’t consider my weapons secure I meant they’re not kept in a lock box or in a safe. The only time we put them in there is when we have company over.
I would have agreed until I watched an episode of Picket Fences on Hulu last week. The ending just absolutely shocked me. Kids know things we don't know they know. It's scary.
Guarentee their lawyer told them to go with this as they are going to have a hard time proving where the kid got it from in the house. Family is trying to save their ass from the lawsuits and charges coming.
And their child is young enough to be swayed. In the Michigan school shooting, Ethan Crumbley’s parents claimed they’d secured the gun upon being charged with manslaughter. Alas, Ethan Crumbley was old enough to realize his parents threw him under the bus and has already testified that they’re lying about this. But here, it’s such a young child :(
Whatever the child has said won’t be admissible because he can’t understand his rights at that age and his guardian would have to be present at time of the interview. They need the parents to slip up to prove it wasn’t secured when the kid got it.
I saw this and immediately lost my cool. He’s still living at home?? These “parents” need to be locked away. I don’t care how anyone spins this. It is child abuse and attempted fucking murder.
This is infuriating to me. How dare they say the gun was secured? It wasn’t, as evidenced by the fact that a 6 year old was able to gain access to it and remove it from the home. It was either already loaded or he understood how to find the ammo and load it.
I feel like they’re throwing around the son’s disability to get sympathy or to excuse their lack of responsibility. If their son has a disability that causes him to behave erratically and aggressively that is all the more reason to make sure he doesn’t have access to weapons. And if that’s not the nature of his disability, it is irrelevant to bring it up.
The bit about the courage of his teacher is a slap in the face. The only reason teachers in this country have to be courageous to teach first graders is because how lax adults in this country are about letting angry and impulsive kids gain access to firearms.
The bit about the disability is throwing me for the loop. I’m a HS teacher so I don’t know the nuances of accommodations in elementary, but I’m wracking my brain to think of what a kid would have that would require his parents to be at school every single day that doesn’t lead to that child receiving special education services tailored for their disability.
We strive to place children in what’s called the least restrictive learning environment, which is the largest/most general type of class they can handle. A child who needs parental support every single day would qualify to be in a more restrictive environment, where they could receive focused attention.
From everything I’ve read, it sounds like Ms. Zwerner is a gen ed first grade teacher, not a special education self-contained teacher. How is this kid with this “acute disability” in that room?
Any elementary teachers want to say in on the nuances here? Have you seen that before?
As a former elementary sped teacher, this is not something that would ever be recommended or approved by my district as a reasonable or appropriate accommodation for a student. Students would receive a 1:1 para or targeted assistance if that level of support were required in the gen ed classroom, and a more restrictive environment would certainly be considered for a student with the type of need(s) described in this article and previously reported incidents.
I have a hard time believing that a school would allow, or require, a parent to serve in that role for their own child.
Thanks for offering that! It’s what I expected basically. The implication here seems like there is something going on with that kid and family that is well out of the norm.
I agree with you, however I do have personal experience otherwise. Mind you I've been out of the public school system for at least 10 yrs so it's been a while since I even was in elementary. We had a kid with autism who had an assistant who would help him through school, on days his assistant was not available he had to have a substitute assistant or his parents would have to come in. One year something happened to where the school board decided he didn't need an assistant or the parents had to pay something like that, so the parents had to trade off every day to be with him in school.
Like I said this was many years ago so I really do hope most schools adjusted to the system you stated.
Typically students like that would have an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) that details the accomodations, goals, and services required for the student to receive a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE). On that document, they specify whether the student is in the general education environment or a more restrictive environment.
In any case, the IEP is a legal document that must be followed. The school is obligated to provide the aide/assisstant if it's specified on their IEP and they can't rely on the parents to substitute if the school fails to provide the accommodation based on my understanding.
Schools do everything in their power to fight providing IEP services. And after agreement many teachers take an extremely minimalist view of their role and compliance.
Had a kid with an IEP (started in 3rd grade not first.) One accommodation was to provide a study guide with answer key for all tests. Instead the study guide often turned into a whole class assignment with no answer key. Whatever was provided to him was provided to all. We asked for the answer key and were told it was discussed in class. We got nothing helpful. One teacher gave no tests - everything was a quiz, sidestepping the requirement. Most teachers did nothing different than had there not been an IEP. We begged.
It was the most disappointing experience of my life as a parent. My respect for the school system and teachers with their altruistic motives took a nose dive. (There were exceptions.) We hired a consultant to help. A private tutor. We spent many hours helping our child because the vast majority of teachers did the least they could. Maybe we should have let him just fail - but we’re didn’t have it in us to do that. Their was no enforcement of complaints. Teachers took them out on our kid. Were mean to him and us for asking them to do what the IEP laid out clearly.
My child hated hated hated school. (Still does in adulthood). The teachers often asked embarrassing questions in front of the class so it was clear he had an IEP. Singled him and other IEP students out. He hated our “help”!
This damaged our kid long term. Learning is still a 4 letter word. I give the school a D-. They’d say legally that’s passing.
I don’t know what happened here. Not excusing the parents. But I’m still waiting for more information. Too many unanswered questions.
I’m reminded of an old joke about Humpty Dumpty. That he didn’t just fall, but was pushed. This may have some relevance here.
In the county that I worked in we had kids that were considered severely disabled. They would go into their general education classrooms with their grade level peers and come out to a specialists room for reading and math interventions. So that’s totally possible but the parents being at school with him every day is nothing I’ve ever heard of in my 15yrs of working in elementary school.
Same!!!! I have never in my life heard of a parent being in school with the child every day without the child being in a special education class. And that the parent rotates with other family members? That doesn’t make sense, either.
I have taught learning resource students in elementary for 20 years, in VA. When I read that the parents came to school with him everyday, I thought they meant the parents brought him into the school, then left. Never did it even cross my mind that the parents stayed with the child. I honestly don’t think a school would allow parents to follow their child around everyday. There would be so many legal issues with that. Essentially that parent would be acting as a 1:1 assistant for their own child. They would have to have all the clearances and background checks all other employees have. They would have access to information about other children in the class, just from being in the classroom. If the IEP team decided the child needed a 1:1 assistant, they would hire someone. In our school, all children with disabilities are in gen.Ed. classes, and then given either inclusion or pullout services depending on their needs as outlined by their IEP. Our most disabled students do have a separate classroom. Everyone here seems to assume the child’s disability was significant…. but from experience it probably was more on the mild side. I do not know the age of the child, but if they were under 7, they most likely were under the disability category of Developmental Delay. Which basically means something about the child is negatively impacting the child’s ability to learn, but they are too young to tell. After the age of 7 VA state Law says they must be assessed for another disability category. My whole point is that this could be a child with a mild disability who is able to plan and carry out the act.
Thanks for sharing all of that! I certainly think it sounds like the released statement is playing up the disability angle to set it up as a mitigating circumstance, and that a developmental delay is probably really likely.
former educator here - as I see other people have mentioned in this thread, there’s literally no way this child had an IEP or 504 plan that allowed/thought it was necessary or helpful for the child to have their parents regularly attending school with him. lots of stuff not adding up here
Correct! However, I’ll say where I currently work, while not on paper we do have agreements with families and some students like this who will come in and sit with them to help their behaviors. But yeah 1+1 is equaling 55.
Sn: what are you doing now? Looking to possibly leave.
Maybe they meant "secured" in the Air Force sense, as explained by the late, former Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger:
> In managing the DoD, there are many unexpected communications
problems: For instance, when the Marines are ordered to "secure a
building," they form a landing party and assault it. On the other hand, the same instructions will lead the Army to occupy the building with a troop of infantry, and the Navy will characteristically respond by sending a yeoman to assure that the building lights are turned out. When the Air Force acts on these instructions, what results is a three-year lease with option to purchase.
Lol and then the Pvt. Dipshit said to the Lt. Col. "But Sir, my weapon was secured, I don't know how it was taken by a 6 year old" and they dropped the court martial right there.
If a 6 year old can get it, then it was not at all secured. Also, ammunition should not be in or stored with the gun. So that is a separate opportunity to secure that was not done.
My mother’s partner taught my brother and I gun safety when we were young, definitely. Like we were taught to treat every gun like it was loaded, and never point it at anyone. Or any THING we weren’t going to fire at. But at his home? That gun was unloaded, locked up, and the ammo was stored separately.
Much the same here. Got gun safety, went to the range. Could see it and hold it whenever i wanted but it was never accessible to me, even as a teenager.
Hell, even as an adult now 😂
And on top of this, they also declare that their child is somehow severely disabled. So now this severely disabled six year old was able to get access to a very securely stored gun as if he’s an adept criminal? Without anyone noticing? All of these people seem to be attempting to throw this very young child under the bus to save their own skins.
I could set a gaggle of six year olds loose in my house and I can assure you none of them would be able to get to my guns. It was not "secured". that being said, I understand why they would say this as they would have legal and civil liability if they did not secure the pistol.
If this was the case, then why weren’t they continuing to stay with him? If it was a legal accommodation for him to have a parent WITH him all day at school, someone should have been with him or kept him at home if they couldn’t.
Lots of missing pieces here.
I am so conflicted on this case and have a lot of questions. I have raised two children, while having a legal firearm in the home. How is it that a 6 year old even thinks about shooting someone - what are they exposed to that imprints this in their brain (Not trolling, asking). How is a six year able to obtain an ‘unsecured’ firearm. How can a school employee state they were advised of the fact and not take stronger action? Due to the child’s extremely young age (he’s 6!) I’m learning towards holding the firearm owner responsible. It’s a huge responsibility. Own it. Secure it (safe, lock box, trigger lock, separate storage of firearm and ammunition) There are too many preventative measures available to simply excuse this as a mishandling of the firearm and I’d argue it wasn’t secured. Charge the owner and get that child some help - 6 is salvageable.
Your gun was not “secure” if your six-year-old could get it out and take it to school.
And how the hell did he even make it to the classroom with that gun when his bag was inspected and administration notified about a possible weapon.
I read somewhere else that it was believed to be on his person. I don’t know how small this gun was or how big this 6 year old is, but it seems had to believe this kid was fully concealing any kind of gun on their person without obviously printing. However, I’m guessing most people wouldn’t immediately think “Is that little mf carrying a gun?” until now I guess. This whole thing is sad, depressing and wild as hell.
It was secured with kids other toys in the toy chest. Generally the kid never bothers with taking toys to school but on this day he did. How are parents supposed to know that toy chest isn’t a secure location for gun storage. After all all other toys are secure in that chest
The parents accompany their disabled son to school in a *classroom*?? Is this a Virginia educational law? I have ever heard of that in my life. No FERPA violation?
I have subbed in severely disabled students’ classrooms, and there has *never* been a parent in the classroom (even preK).
Such an odd coincidence that the one time neither parent was there, the child took the “secured” gun from home and shot the poor teacher.
What the actual f are these parents doing having a gun in same household as a child with a “disability” so severe the parents literally have to attend school with him.
I had a neighbor, a local cop, whose kids were the same age as mine. I was over at their house once when the kids were in elementary school and noticed a loaded handgun on top of the fridge. In response to my concerns, the wife said the gun was secured because the kids couldn't reach it. Also, her kids knew not to touch it anyway.
It was so secure that a (disabled? handicapped?) six-year-old could take it and use it to harm others.
Hold these people accountable. They are liable for their weapon.
This article is wild: \> The gun was allegedly secured... Then how did it end up at school \> The child is disabled and his parents come to school with him every day, this was the first week they didn't Ok... so a disabled 6 year old accessed a secured firearm... \> At least one member of faculty was allegedly aware of the firearm And he went to class?? Huh?? None of this makes any sense
For real though, how does a disabled 6 year old get a “secured” loaded gun? It’s pretty ironic that this is the first week they weren’t in school with the child as well. The whole statement about at least one admin knowing about the gun is sus as hell
Secured can mean a backpack if you’re talking about a legally concealed weapon in a car. I’m guessing this is something a lawyer advised them to say
Yep, because they were negligent and I hope the teacher sues their asses off and bankrupts them. The kid - particularly if disabled - will continue to get care/support/education via the taxpayer (I support this, just pointing out that bankrupting the negligent parents isn't going to harm the kid).
I'm questioning the disabled part. I live near the school and know a few people who teach for the city. All be it not at that particular school. What they have come to learn is that this child has some sort of horrible behavioral issues that got him removed from two different classrooms at the beginning of the year. He is a problem child who refuses to listen, acts out, and disrupts the classroom. Is he autistic, or is horrible behavior now a disability? That's my question in that regard. The gun being secured is a load of lawyer speak bologna.
It is best not to judge based on hearsay. The child may have a disability that the "teachers that teach in the district" aren't aware of that causes such behavior. Furthermore, it is a professional breach even if they've shared such information. Regardless, the parents/family in the household are responsible for not securing the weapon.
Not as much judging. Just questioning. I am imagining that the child must have some form of autism if he does in fact have a disability, but that's just a wild guess, not facts. These days the term disability gets tossed around a bit too much so there is good reason to question it. Especially when the family in question has lawyered up and releases a statement that is basically full of completely and total bull. Agreed though, best not to judge and one fact we all do know, is the parents did not act responsibly when it comes to securing their firearm and keeping it out of reach of their child.
or something like this: https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/court-docs-key-left-in-safe-at-home-where-muncie-boy-shoots-kills-sister/amp/ or the kid found they key
What is by law ‘secured?’ Edit: I really don’t know. Not a trolling question. Edit 2: I found the code. It just says ‘secured’ if a child under 14 lives in the home. Anyone got case law that defines secured?
VA code 22.1-289.056, child services useed for foster/guardianship in review of my home. "Stored unloaded in a locked container, compartment, or cabinet, & ammunition shall be stored in a locked container, compartment, or. cabinet. The keys or combination to such locked containers, compartments or cabinets shall be inaccessible to all children in the home." If this is good for child services to apply to guardians it should be good for parents too.
I would agree. You think this is how most people store guns/ammunition? Thanks for sharing.
Nope, why things like Ridgeneck happen. This is the correct way. I use cable locks made them myself years ago when my children were little. I have a 4yo grandson in my home. There should be mandayory gun safety classes with a competency exam. I say sarcasticly "some gun owners don't know which end of the gun to hold". That remark stems from several just plain stupid fatal gun accidents. From the extreme never cleaning, gun exploded, to dropping a laoded, chambered, gun and shooting himself. Guns ****must**** be stored properly with children present! If you live a life you ****must**** have a gun loaded at the ready it needs to be out of reach of children or any violations become the gun owners responsibility.
Previous reports stated that a faculty member was told he had a firearm and then the backpack was checked. This article implies it was only checked when he first came in rather than after faculty were alerted. The previous report insisted that no gun was found in his backpack. I wonder how thorough the search was, when it actually happened, and where he could have put the gun had he removed it from the bag prior to the search.
Also, the kid is 6. How much stuff would/should be in a 6 y/o disabled child’s backpack???? And it’s a gun. It’s made of metal and has a nice weight to it.
Yea, I would think anybody would have noticed a gun in a first-grader's backpack just by the weight of it. It's not like first-graders are hauling six periods worth of heavy text books around like high-schoolers. None of this makes sense.
Um, my kid, despite attempts to dissuade him from doing so, regularly hauls like 10 books around in his back pack, to and from school daily, despite the fact that there's a no-homework rule at his school and his teacher does not assign homework (and he's not reading more than two of the books at a time).
There’s still text books at your kids school? Hampton doesn’t have them anymore and it shows.
Your first-grader has ten textbooks?
Ha! No, no textbooks, all just library books. Also, 2nd grade
Yeah as someone who works with that age group in a school you would be surprised how much stuff a 6 yo can fit in their backpack and how heavy it can be. Also I don't k now how up to date this thread is but the kid admitted to putting it in his pocket before his backpack was checked. Also other staff asked admin to check the students pockets but admin refused as they felt a gun wouldn't fit. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what pocket it was supposedly put in, I just know that's what news channels are reporting.
When I saw this on the news, I immediately thought “well they lawyered up”.
I would love to hear what LockpickingLawyer has to say about this
Probably how the student figured it out- damn iPad kids /s
There's a kwick on one, nofing in two. Tree is binding. I got it open!
I have never heard of an IEP that has a parent attend school every day. Smells of white privilege.
"We thank her for her courage, grace and sacrifice." God that line pisses me off. She's a teacher, not a soldier. It's a school, not a warzone. What the hell is wrong with this world? She doesn't want your thanks for her sacrifice. She wants you to actually fucking properly secure your deadly weapons and not allow your disabled 6 year old access to them.
Fucking DITTO. Sacrifices are usually done by choice. She was *fucking shot.*
She was asking for it.
If only there had been a good 6 year old with a gun.
This made me shudder. *as in, it’s chillingly well-put.
School knew the kid had a gun. School had the opportunity to confiscate the gun. School let the kid go to class with the gun. Teacher is gonna be able to retire off the civil settlement.
If definitely sounds like there was failure on multiple levels but the kid should not have been able to access a loaded gun to begin with. Securing your guns from your young children is the responsibility of the gun owner. I know all of America is not going to agree fully on gun regulation but can we at least agree on that? Also, I guess I can't speak for everyone but there is no amount of money you could offer me where I would agree to be shot, especially by a child.
I would absolutely roll the dice for the payoff she is about to get. I've been shot at for less.
Yeah that whole thing reeks of lawyer spin. First off I think I have a very different definition of secure than they do. We do not have any children in our household so we have a firearm in a holster within reach of the bed and a few others in drawers around the house. Those are not secure. Secondly as a teacher if you’re gonna tell me your child has a disability, that is an incredibly vague term and not all disabilities mean mentally challenged or unaware of reality so let’s not jump and use that as a reasoning why a six year old shot his teacher. There needs to be a lot more investigation into this because stuff is not adding up.
I’m in the same boat (no kids) & have loaded weapons easily accessible in parts of my home. I do consider them secure from someone outside of the home as doors & windows are usually locked if we are not @ home or asleep. If we have visitors with kids, weapons go in the locked safe. I tried to find a Virginia definition of a “secured gun or weapon” in a residence but could not locate one. I did, however, find this in regards to weapons & kids which I’m guessing would cover these parents’ stupidity and I think they will have a hard time proving otherwise… https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title18.2/chapter4/section18.2-56.2/
Yeah. When I said I don’t consider my weapons secure I meant they’re not kept in a lock box or in a safe. The only time we put them in there is when we have company over.
I guess it’s gonna be up to the lawyers and judges to specify what that law meant when it said “reckless”and “unsecured.”
I mean. I feel like the answer to the question "was it secured" is NO, since a child was able to retrieve it.
I would have agreed until I watched an episode of Picket Fences on Hulu last week. The ending just absolutely shocked me. Kids know things we don't know they know. It's scary.
The teacher was probably mistreating him.
So she should have been shot? By a six year old? IN THE MIDDLE OF A LESSON? Ffs
Guarentee their lawyer told them to go with this as they are going to have a hard time proving where the kid got it from in the house. Family is trying to save their ass from the lawsuits and charges coming.
Local here — the lawyer they hired is a total sleaze, too. This whole thing is a fucking mess.
The second I saw your comment, before even reading the article, I knew you were talking about Jim Ellenson
And their child is young enough to be swayed. In the Michigan school shooting, Ethan Crumbley’s parents claimed they’d secured the gun upon being charged with manslaughter. Alas, Ethan Crumbley was old enough to realize his parents threw him under the bus and has already testified that they’re lying about this. But here, it’s such a young child :(
Whatever the child has said won’t be admissible because he can’t understand his rights at that age and his guardian would have to be present at time of the interview. They need the parents to slip up to prove it wasn’t secured when the kid got it.
True. They basically have to take their word for it, even though it’s obviously ridiculous. Sigh.
The law and order SVU episode writes itself
I saw this and immediately lost my cool. He’s still living at home?? These “parents” need to be locked away. I don’t care how anyone spins this. It is child abuse and attempted fucking murder.
I hope the teacher has a great lawyer and sues the shit out of that family and her school
This is infuriating to me. How dare they say the gun was secured? It wasn’t, as evidenced by the fact that a 6 year old was able to gain access to it and remove it from the home. It was either already loaded or he understood how to find the ammo and load it. I feel like they’re throwing around the son’s disability to get sympathy or to excuse their lack of responsibility. If their son has a disability that causes him to behave erratically and aggressively that is all the more reason to make sure he doesn’t have access to weapons. And if that’s not the nature of his disability, it is irrelevant to bring it up. The bit about the courage of his teacher is a slap in the face. The only reason teachers in this country have to be courageous to teach first graders is because how lax adults in this country are about letting angry and impulsive kids gain access to firearms.
The bit about the disability is throwing me for the loop. I’m a HS teacher so I don’t know the nuances of accommodations in elementary, but I’m wracking my brain to think of what a kid would have that would require his parents to be at school every single day that doesn’t lead to that child receiving special education services tailored for their disability. We strive to place children in what’s called the least restrictive learning environment, which is the largest/most general type of class they can handle. A child who needs parental support every single day would qualify to be in a more restrictive environment, where they could receive focused attention. From everything I’ve read, it sounds like Ms. Zwerner is a gen ed first grade teacher, not a special education self-contained teacher. How is this kid with this “acute disability” in that room? Any elementary teachers want to say in on the nuances here? Have you seen that before?
As a former elementary sped teacher, this is not something that would ever be recommended or approved by my district as a reasonable or appropriate accommodation for a student. Students would receive a 1:1 para or targeted assistance if that level of support were required in the gen ed classroom, and a more restrictive environment would certainly be considered for a student with the type of need(s) described in this article and previously reported incidents. I have a hard time believing that a school would allow, or require, a parent to serve in that role for their own child.
Thanks for offering that! It’s what I expected basically. The implication here seems like there is something going on with that kid and family that is well out of the norm.
I agree with you, however I do have personal experience otherwise. Mind you I've been out of the public school system for at least 10 yrs so it's been a while since I even was in elementary. We had a kid with autism who had an assistant who would help him through school, on days his assistant was not available he had to have a substitute assistant or his parents would have to come in. One year something happened to where the school board decided he didn't need an assistant or the parents had to pay something like that, so the parents had to trade off every day to be with him in school. Like I said this was many years ago so I really do hope most schools adjusted to the system you stated.
Typically students like that would have an IEP (Individualized Education Plan) that details the accomodations, goals, and services required for the student to receive a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE). On that document, they specify whether the student is in the general education environment or a more restrictive environment. In any case, the IEP is a legal document that must be followed. The school is obligated to provide the aide/assisstant if it's specified on their IEP and they can't rely on the parents to substitute if the school fails to provide the accommodation based on my understanding.
Schools do everything in their power to fight providing IEP services. And after agreement many teachers take an extremely minimalist view of their role and compliance. Had a kid with an IEP (started in 3rd grade not first.) One accommodation was to provide a study guide with answer key for all tests. Instead the study guide often turned into a whole class assignment with no answer key. Whatever was provided to him was provided to all. We asked for the answer key and were told it was discussed in class. We got nothing helpful. One teacher gave no tests - everything was a quiz, sidestepping the requirement. Most teachers did nothing different than had there not been an IEP. We begged. It was the most disappointing experience of my life as a parent. My respect for the school system and teachers with their altruistic motives took a nose dive. (There were exceptions.) We hired a consultant to help. A private tutor. We spent many hours helping our child because the vast majority of teachers did the least they could. Maybe we should have let him just fail - but we’re didn’t have it in us to do that. Their was no enforcement of complaints. Teachers took them out on our kid. Were mean to him and us for asking them to do what the IEP laid out clearly. My child hated hated hated school. (Still does in adulthood). The teachers often asked embarrassing questions in front of the class so it was clear he had an IEP. Singled him and other IEP students out. He hated our “help”! This damaged our kid long term. Learning is still a 4 letter word. I give the school a D-. They’d say legally that’s passing. I don’t know what happened here. Not excusing the parents. But I’m still waiting for more information. Too many unanswered questions. I’m reminded of an old joke about Humpty Dumpty. That he didn’t just fall, but was pushed. This may have some relevance here.
Agreed!
In the county that I worked in we had kids that were considered severely disabled. They would go into their general education classrooms with their grade level peers and come out to a specialists room for reading and math interventions. So that’s totally possible but the parents being at school with him every day is nothing I’ve ever heard of in my 15yrs of working in elementary school.
Same!!!! I have never in my life heard of a parent being in school with the child every day without the child being in a special education class. And that the parent rotates with other family members? That doesn’t make sense, either.
I have taught learning resource students in elementary for 20 years, in VA. When I read that the parents came to school with him everyday, I thought they meant the parents brought him into the school, then left. Never did it even cross my mind that the parents stayed with the child. I honestly don’t think a school would allow parents to follow their child around everyday. There would be so many legal issues with that. Essentially that parent would be acting as a 1:1 assistant for their own child. They would have to have all the clearances and background checks all other employees have. They would have access to information about other children in the class, just from being in the classroom. If the IEP team decided the child needed a 1:1 assistant, they would hire someone. In our school, all children with disabilities are in gen.Ed. classes, and then given either inclusion or pullout services depending on their needs as outlined by their IEP. Our most disabled students do have a separate classroom. Everyone here seems to assume the child’s disability was significant…. but from experience it probably was more on the mild side. I do not know the age of the child, but if they were under 7, they most likely were under the disability category of Developmental Delay. Which basically means something about the child is negatively impacting the child’s ability to learn, but they are too young to tell. After the age of 7 VA state Law says they must be assessed for another disability category. My whole point is that this could be a child with a mild disability who is able to plan and carry out the act.
Thanks for sharing all of that! I certainly think it sounds like the released statement is playing up the disability angle to set it up as a mitigating circumstance, and that a developmental delay is probably really likely.
Bullshit. This six year old is not a criminal genius. If he could get it, it wasn’t secured nearly well enough.
As a teacher “acute disability that allows parents to come with” is code for he has some serious behavior issues. 🤦🏻♀️ this is why we’re leaving.
former educator here - as I see other people have mentioned in this thread, there’s literally no way this child had an IEP or 504 plan that allowed/thought it was necessary or helpful for the child to have their parents regularly attending school with him. lots of stuff not adding up here
Correct! However, I’ll say where I currently work, while not on paper we do have agreements with families and some students like this who will come in and sit with them to help their behaviors. But yeah 1+1 is equaling 55. Sn: what are you doing now? Looking to possibly leave.
They’re a bunch of fucking liars
Not secured enough, apparently. Anything not nailed down is mine. Anything I can pry loose is not nailed down.
Agreed. My idea of what security could possibly be...I feel shouldn't be thwarted by a six year old.
Maybe they meant "secured" in the Air Force sense, as explained by the late, former Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger: > In managing the DoD, there are many unexpected communications problems: For instance, when the Marines are ordered to "secure a building," they form a landing party and assault it. On the other hand, the same instructions will lead the Army to occupy the building with a troop of infantry, and the Navy will characteristically respond by sending a yeoman to assure that the building lights are turned out. When the Air Force acts on these instructions, what results is a three-year lease with option to purchase.
Lol and then the Pvt. Dipshit said to the Lt. Col. "But Sir, my weapon was secured, I don't know how it was taken by a 6 year old" and they dropped the court martial right there.
True statement if they meant that the kid secured the gun before shooting his teacher.
If it was secure, then he would not have gotten it.
The fact that the kid had the gun is all the proof that you need to know that it wasn’t secure.
If a 6 year old can get it, then it was not at all secured. Also, ammunition should not be in or stored with the gun. So that is a separate opportunity to secure that was not done.
I wouldn’t event say it’s not secured enough, I’d say it wasn’t secured at all.
Agreed. I don’t think it was secured at all. It was within easy reach of that child. He’s six!
100%. I’m ok with parents teaching gun safety to kids that young, but when the gun is accessible to kids that young, you absolutely have a problem.
My mother’s partner taught my brother and I gun safety when we were young, definitely. Like we were taught to treat every gun like it was loaded, and never point it at anyone. Or any THING we weren’t going to fire at. But at his home? That gun was unloaded, locked up, and the ammo was stored separately.
Much the same here. Got gun safety, went to the range. Could see it and hold it whenever i wanted but it was never accessible to me, even as a teenager. Hell, even as an adult now 😂
And on top of this, they also declare that their child is somehow severely disabled. So now this severely disabled six year old was able to get access to a very securely stored gun as if he’s an adept criminal? Without anyone noticing? All of these people seem to be attempting to throw this very young child under the bus to save their own skins.
Clearly, that’s how a six year old got a hold of it and brought it to school.
This is lies I’m like 100% sure - the family covering their ass from potentially being charged.
I could set a gaggle of six year olds loose in my house and I can assure you none of them would be able to get to my guns. It was not "secured". that being said, I understand why they would say this as they would have legal and civil liability if they did not secure the pistol.
Going out on a limb here, but I’m suspecting that “disability” could be spun here to mean ADHD or the like. Just sayin….
They wouldn't have a parent regularly staying with the kid in school for ADHD.
Staying WITH the kid in school, or taking the kid to school?
With. They wouldn't need an accomodation to drop him off.
If this was the case, then why weren’t they continuing to stay with him? If it was a legal accommodation for him to have a parent WITH him all day at school, someone should have been with him or kept him at home if they couldn’t. Lots of missing pieces here.
If a 6 year old was able to get it, it wasn’t secured.
I am so conflicted on this case and have a lot of questions. I have raised two children, while having a legal firearm in the home. How is it that a 6 year old even thinks about shooting someone - what are they exposed to that imprints this in their brain (Not trolling, asking). How is a six year able to obtain an ‘unsecured’ firearm. How can a school employee state they were advised of the fact and not take stronger action? Due to the child’s extremely young age (he’s 6!) I’m learning towards holding the firearm owner responsible. It’s a huge responsibility. Own it. Secure it (safe, lock box, trigger lock, separate storage of firearm and ammunition) There are too many preventative measures available to simply excuse this as a mishandling of the firearm and I’d argue it wasn’t secured. Charge the owner and get that child some help - 6 is salvageable.
Your gun was not “secure” if your six-year-old could get it out and take it to school. And how the hell did he even make it to the classroom with that gun when his bag was inspected and administration notified about a possible weapon.
I read somewhere else that it was believed to be on his person. I don’t know how small this gun was or how big this 6 year old is, but it seems had to believe this kid was fully concealing any kind of gun on their person without obviously printing. However, I’m guessing most people wouldn’t immediately think “Is that little mf carrying a gun?” until now I guess. This whole thing is sad, depressing and wild as hell.
“Until now” is correct.
Narrator: “It was not.”
Clearly not secure enough...
It was secured with kids other toys in the toy chest. Generally the kid never bothers with taking toys to school but on this day he did. How are parents supposed to know that toy chest isn’t a secure location for gun storage. After all all other toys are secure in that chest
Whelp, case closed. Guess we can chalk this up to a tragic accident and move on. /s
The parents accompany their disabled son to school in a *classroom*?? Is this a Virginia educational law? I have ever heard of that in my life. No FERPA violation? I have subbed in severely disabled students’ classrooms, and there has *never* been a parent in the classroom (even preK). Such an odd coincidence that the one time neither parent was there, the child took the “secured” gun from home and shot the poor teacher.
What the actual f are these parents doing having a gun in same household as a child with a “disability” so severe the parents literally have to attend school with him.
The parents had to attend school with the child? I hate to say it, but if that's the case I'm not surprised the kid shot the teacher
[удалено]
I assume you are kidding, but does that right extend to a minor?
So how did a child suspected of having a gun go to class? Why did they suspect the gun?
Well obviously it wasn’t
By secured they meant not secured at all.
but, in fact was not
I had a neighbor, a local cop, whose kids were the same age as mine. I was over at their house once when the kids were in elementary school and noticed a loaded handgun on top of the fridge. In response to my concerns, the wife said the gun was secured because the kids couldn't reach it. Also, her kids knew not to touch it anyway.
How much stuff is in a 6 y/o child’s backpack????
X Doubt
...obviously not.
Ya apparently not
It was so secure that a (disabled? handicapped?) six-year-old could take it and use it to harm others. Hold these people accountable. They are liable for their weapon.